Anarchist Zine Archive

ATUBES November 2017

Digest of the Anarchist Tubes, Volume 3, #11

ANEWS

2017, December

Contents

Italy: Scripta Manent trial (started on 16/11/2017) — Statement to the court by an¬
archist Alfredo Cospito . 3

Insurrection Cannot Be Negotiated . 8

Reflection - 325 static until Spring 2018 . 15

To a Trodden Pansy: Remembering Louis Lingg . 16

2

Italy: Scripta Manent trial (started on 16/11/2017) —

Statement to the court by anarchist Alfredo Cospito

( translated by act for freedom now!, via anarhija.info)

On 16/1 1/201 7 the SCRIPTA MANENT trial began inside the bunker courtroom of ‘Le Vallette’
prison in Turin. Imprisoned anarchist comrade Alfredo Cospito read a long declaration. Alfredo
was not present in court as he was subjected to video conferencing from inside the AS2 unit in
the prison of Ferrara.

Declaration to the Court:

Benevento 14th August 1878- Turin 16th 2017

Malefactors on trial

The Union of Egoists is your instrument, it is the sword with which you increase your
natural strength; the Union exists thanks to you. Society, on the other hand, demands much
from you and it exists without you; in short, society is sacred, Union is yours; society uses
you, the Union-you use it - Stirner

O, gentlemen, the time of life is short! .. An if we live, we live to tread on kings — Shake¬
speare, Henry IV

I regret every crime in my life that I haven’t committed, every desire that I have not satis¬
fied - Senna Hoy

I want to be as clear as possible, so that my words sound like an admission of guilt. As
far as it is possible to belong to an instrument, a technique, I claim my belonging to FAI-FRI
with pride. With pride I recognize myself in its entire history. I am a fully-fledged part of it
and my contribution carries the signature of ‘Olga Nucleus’. If this farce had been limited to
myself and Nicola, I’d have remained silent. But you have involved a significant part of all
those who have been giving solidarity to us over these years, among them those I love dearly.
At this point I cannot refrain from speaking my mind, to remain silent would make me an
accomplice of your shameful attempt to strike an important part of the anarchist movement
indiscriminately. Comrades dragged behind bars and put on trial, not for what they did but for
what they are: anarchists. Tried and arrested not for having claimed, like I did, an action with
the acronym FAI-FRI, but for having participated in meetings, written in papers and blogs,
and more simply for giving solidarity to comrades on trial. I will not use these comrades as a
shield. In an era when ideas don’t count, to be put on trial and arrested for an idea says a lot
about the explosive force that a certain vision of anarchy continues to have, and it also says
a lot about the empty shells that democracy and so-called democratic freedoms are.

You have your reasons, I’m not denying that, after all good anarchists don’t exist, in every
anarchist smoulders the desire to hurl you off that bench. For my part, I make no attempt
to pass off the FAI-FRI as a recreational association or a boy scouts club. Those who have
made use of this instrument, or as you ignorant of anarchy would say ‘those who are of the
FAI-FRI’, claim it with their heads held high like my brothers and sisters arrested in the past,
like myself in Genoa years ago and in this courtroom today. It’s our history that is teach¬
ing you that, a history that, never martyrs, never surrendered, we are paying with years of

3

prison and isolation over half the world. Those who are not part of this history of ours and
are dragged before you in chains are keeping silent out of solidarity, love, friendship, feelings
that are unimaginable, incomprehensible for you servants of the state. Your ‘justice’ is abuse
perpetrated by the strongest over the weakest. I guarantee, you won’t find any coward or
opportunist among the defendants in this trial. The price of dignity is incalculable and its
gifts are various and priceless beyond all limits and imagination, it’s always worth paying
that price, and I’m ready to pay it any time. It should be of no importance to you whether
it really was me who placed those bombs. Because I feel an accomplice to those deeds and
all the actions claimed by the FAI-FRI. Especially as the actions you accuse me of are all in
solidarity with migrants and anarchist prisoners and I agree with them totally. How could I
not feel complicity when these explosions were like flares in the darkness for me. However
stupid it might seem to you, for me there is a before and after the FAI. Before, when I was
fanatically and stupidly convinced that only unclaimed actions had any utility, reproducibil¬
ity, convinced as I was that destructive action should necessarily speak for itself and that
any acronym was the devil’s shit. And after when, with the gunshot to Adinolfi I questioned
these insurrectional dogmas to the point of making my new convictions real through an ac¬
tion. A small thing, some might say, and that would be so if behind that simple acronym
there wasn’t a method that could really make a difference for we anarchists of praxis beyond
and outside repression and courtrooms. However limited my contribution, however late it
came, I feel I am fully an accomplice of the brothers and sisters who began this road.

Whoever they are, wherever they are, I hope they won’t blame me if I make their actions
mine, they represent me. It matters little if I have never looked them in the eyes, I have read
their words of fire, I agreed with them, I approve of their actions and that’s enough for me,
I have no wish to appropriate but rather a strong proud will to share responsibility. Judges,
I would have liked to have spit my direct responsibility for the deeds you are accusing me
of in your faces (as I did in Genoa), but I cannot appropriate merits and honours that are
not mine, that would be pushing things too far. You will and I will have to be content with
what you would define ‘political responsibility’ in your language impregnated with author¬
ity. Don’t despair, as you are so good at inventing rock-hard evidence, however tortuous,
and at resurrecting stupefying DNA, however made inconsistent from the oblivion of past
files; you won’t have any trouble in taking home a good haul of years in jail. And then, if
you really want to know, a sentence against me is totally appropriate, even only for my ad¬
hesion to FAI-FRI, an adhesion to a method, not to an organization, not to mention my firm
and concrete will to destroy you and everything you represent. You struck at random among
my dearest ones, relatives, friends without pity. Moral scruples are not your strong point,
you have blackmailed, threatened, taken children away from their parents as an instrument
of coercion and extortion. Comrades who have nothing to do with FAI-FRI were dragged
in front of you with dull accusations and evidence. One of the reasons, not the most impor¬
tant, for which I claimed FAI-FRI was so as not to expose the anarchist movement to facile
criminalization.

Today I find myself in court to oppose your reprisal, your miserable attempt to put ‘Croce
Nera’ in the dock, a historical periodical of the anarchist movement, which with its ups and

4

downs has since the sixties been carrying out its role of support to anarchist prisoners pris¬
oners of war. In your fascistoid delirium you are trying to pass ‘Croce Nera’ off as FAI-FRI
press organ. They didn’t even go that far in 1969 in the full anti-anarchist campaign. At the
time your colleagues, once they had their pound of human flesh with the murder of the Ital¬
ian ‘Croce Nera’ founder Pinelli, limited themselves to incriminating individual comrades for
specific deeds, and we all know how that ended up. Now that blood is in short supply you
don’t limit yourself to accusing a few comrades for specific actions, you push further to the
point of criminalizing a whole part of the movement. All those who belonged to the Croce
Nera editorial group, who wrote in it or even only participated in their public presentations,
are all part of FAI-FRI in your inquisitorial optic. My proud participation in the ‘Croce Nera’
editorial group and in other anarchist periodicals doesn’t make these journals FAI-FRI press
organs. My participation is individual, every anarchist is a monad, an island of its own, his/
her contribution is always individual. I avail myself of the FAI-FRI instrument only to make
war. The use of this instrument, the adhesion to the method that follows doesn’t involve my
whole life as an anarchist, and in no way does it involve the other editors of the journals
with which I collaborate. One of the characteristics of my anarchy is the multiform nature
of the practices used in the field, all of them quite differentiated. I respond only for myself,
each one responds for themself. I’m not interested in knowing who claims with the acronym
FAI-FRI, I only communicate with them through actions and the words that follow them. I
consider it would be counter-productive to know them personally and I don’t go looking for
them either, even less to do a journal together. My life as an anarchist, also here in prison, is
far more complex and varied than an acronym and a method and I shall struggle to the end
so that the umbilical cord that links me to the anarchist movement is not cut by isolation and
your jails.

Get it into your heads, without detracting anything from counter-information, the FAI-
FRI doesn’t edit journals or blogs. It doesn’t need spectators or fans or experts in counter¬
information, it’s not enough to like it to be part of it, one has to get one’s hands dirty with
actions, risk one’s life, put it at stake, really believe in it. Even heads twisted by authority
like yours should have understood, the FAI-FRI is only made up of anonymous brothers and
sisters who strike using that acronym and the anarchist prisoners who claim to belong to it,
the rest is generalization and manipulation by the repression. I am taking the opportunity
that you are giving me with this trial to remove the suffocating gag of censorship and have
my say on topics that I really care about in the hope that my words will reach my brothers
and sisters beyond these walls. The ‘community I belong to’ is the anarchist movement with
all its facets and contradictions. That rich and varied world in which I have lived the last
thirty years of my life, a life that I wouldn’t change for any other. I have written in anarchist
papers, I continue to do so, I have participated in demonstrations, street clashes, occupations,
I have carried out actions, practiced revolutionary violence. My ‘community of reference’ are
all my brothers and sisters who use the FAI-FRI method to communicate, in my case, with¬
out knowing each other, without organizing themselves, without coordinating themselves,
without giving up any freedom. I never confused the two levels, the FAI-FRI is simply an
instrument, one of the many at anarchists’ disposition. Uniquely an instrument for making

5

war. The anarchist movement is my world, my ‘community of belonging’, the sea in which I
swim.

My ‘community of reference’ are the individuals, affinity nuclei, informal organizations
(coordination of a number of groups) that communicate, without contaminating one another,
through the acronym FAI-FRI, talking with one another through the claims that follow the
actions. A method this which gives me, anti-civiliser, anti-organizer, individualist, nihilist,
the possibility of joining forces with other anarchist individuals, informal organizations (co¬
ordination of a number of groups), affinity nuclei without giving up my freedom to them,
without renouncing my personal convictions and tendencies: I define myself anti-civilizer
because I think the time at our disposal is very limited before the technology, becoming
aware of itself, will ultimately dominate the human race. I define myself an anti-organizer
because I feel part of the anti-organizer illegalist tradition of the anarchist movement, I be¬
lieve in fluid relations, free relations between anarchists, I believe in free agreement, in the
given word. I define myself individualist because by nature I could never delegate power and
decisions to others, nor could I be part of an organization, be it informal or specific. I define
myself nihilist because I gave up the dream of a future revolution in favour of revolt now,
immediately.

Revolt is my revolution and I live it every time I clash with the existent with violence.
I believe that our main task today is to destroy. Thanks to FAI-FRI ‘struggle campaigns’ I
give myself the possibility of making my action more powerful and effective. ‘Struggle cam¬
paigns’ that must necessarily come out of actions that lead to other actions, not out of calls or
public assemblies, so that the political mechanisms of authoritativeness of which movement
assemblies are full, are cut off. The only word that counts is that of who really strikes. In my
opinion the assemblear method is a blunt weapon for making war, inevitable and profitable
in other contexts. Adhering to the FAI-FRI ‘struggle campaigns’ with my efforts, in my case
as an individualist with no part in any informal organization (coordination of a number of
groups), I make use of a collective strength that is something more and different from the
mere mathematical sum of the single strengths unleashed by single affinity groups, individ¬
uals and informal organizations. This ‘synergy’ makes it possible that ‘the whole’, FAI-FRI,
is something much more than the sum of the subjects it is composed of. All this while safe¬
guarding one’s own individual autonomy thanks to the total lack of direct links, knowledge,
with the groups, informal organizations and single anarchists who claim with that acronym.
One gives oneself a common acronym to allow individuals, groups, informal organizations
to adhere to and recognize themselves in a method that safeguards their particular projects
in an absolute way, those who claim FAI-FRI adhere to that method. Nothing ideological
or political, only an instrument (a claim through an acronym) as the product of a method
(communication between individuals, groups, informal organizations through the actions)
that aims to give strength in the moment of the action without homologating, flattening. The
acronym is important, it guarantees continuity, stability, perseverance, quantitative growth,
a recognizable history but in fact the real strength, the real turning, consists in the simple,
linear, horizontal, absolutely anarchist method of direct communication through claims with¬
out mediators, without meetings, without knowing one another, without exposing oneself

6

excessively to repression, only those who act communicate, those who put themselves at
stake with action.

The real innovation is the method. The acronym becomes counter-productive if it spills
over the task for which it came to life i.e. to recognize one another as brothers and sisters
who adopt a method. That’s all. Practice is our litmus paper, it is in practice that the efficacy
of an instrument is tested. One has to acknowledge that the FAI-FRI experience, in constant
evolution, puts us in the front of fast, chaotic transformations; one should not be taken aback.
Immobilism and stagnation represent death, our strength is the exploration of new roads.

Certainly the future of this experience lies not in more structuring, but in an attempt, full of
perspectives, at collaboration between single anarchists, affinity groups, informal organiza¬
tions, without ever contaminating one another. Coordination instances must remain within
the single informal organization, between the single groups or nuclei that form it, without
overflowing beyond, without involving other FAI-FRI informal organizations and most im¬
portantly FAI-FRI groups and single anarchists who would otherwise see their autonomy,
freedom, the very sense of their acting outside organizations and coordination being under¬
mined at the base. In this way only if authoritarian dynamics are created within a group, an
organization, they will remain confined there where they were born, thus avoiding conta¬
gion. There’s no whole, there’s no organization called FAI-FRI; there are individuals, affinity
groups, informal organizations all of them well differentiated, that communicate through
the acronym FAI-FRI, without ever coming into contact with one another. Much has been
written and said about the internal dynamics of affinity groups, about informal organization
and individual action. On the contrary communication between these practices has never
been explored, never taken into consideration. FAI-FRI is an attempt at putting this commu¬
nication into practice. Individual actions, affinity groups, organizations are all part in equal
way of those instruments that anarchists have historically always given themselves. Each
of these instruments has pros and cons. An affinity group unites operational speed due to a
deepened knowledge between the individuals in affinity and a certain force due to the union
of more individuals. Its great merits: freedom of the individual guaranteed and significant
resistance to repression. Merits due to the scarce number of individuals in affinity and to
the great affection and friendship that necessarily links them to one another. Organization,
in our case informal, (coordination of a number of groups), guarantees a very strong avail¬
ability of means and strength, but also high vulnerability due to the necessary coordination
(knowledge) between the groups or nuclei, because if one is hit the risk has a ‘domino’ ef¬
fect, everybody falls. From my point of view individual freedom will necessarily clash with
collective decision-making mechanisms (the ‘rules’ of the functioning of the organization).
This aspect represents a drastic reduction of freedom and autonomy, indigestible for an indi¬
vidualist anarchist.

Individual action guarantees high operational speed, high unpredictability, very strong
resistance to repression and above all total freedom, the individual doesn’t need to relate
to anything or anybody other than his/her own conscience. A big defect: low operational
potentiality, one probably has fewer means and possibilities to carry out complex operations

7

(which on the contrary an informal organization can achieve fairly easily if there is will and
firmness).

To experiment with ways of acting so radically different, this is the innovation, the new
that can destabilize and make us dangerous. No ambiguous mixing, groups, individuals, in¬
formal organizations must ever come into direct contact. To each his/her own, hybrids would
weaken us. United more by a method than an acronym. FAI-FRI makes it possible to unite
forces without losing one’s own nature. No moralism or dogmatism, each one relates freely,
probably it will be the mixing of all this that will make the difference.

No coordination outside the single informal organization (because coordination includes
the physical knowledge between all the groups and organizations making them prone to re¬
pression), no homologating, hegemonic superstructure, which crushes individuals and affin¬
ity groups. Those who experiment with the informal organization in their acting must not
impose their own ways of acting outside it, just as the single individuals of action and ‘soli¬
tary’ affinity groups must not cry betrayal of the idea if brothers and sisters act in tight
organized ranks. Of course this is only my point of view for what it’s worth. And to top this
off, I’ll say that I piss on your penal code carefree and lighthearted. It matters little what you
will decide for me, my fate will stay firmly in my own hands. I am strong, or at least I fancy
I am, and your jail and isolation don’t scare me, I’m ready to face your retaliations, never
tamed, never surrendered.

Long live FAI-FRI

Long live CCF

Death to the State!

Death to civilization!

Long live Anarchy!!

Alfredo Cospito

Insurrection Cannot Be Negotiated

From Mpalothia by Imprisoned Conspiracy of Cells of Fire FAI-IRF Member Panagiotis
Argyrou

Time is the illness of reality. In prison, time seems to poison the atmosphere. The air thick¬
ens as though it is flooded with lead filings and each and every day our lungs are infested
with this oxygen so toxic that it weighs on us again and again, more so with each passing
day.

You feel so burdened that at some point you begin to think that every step you take, re¬
moves a day from your life; each step and a day less, each step and a day less

During these almost 6 years and a half of my imprisonment, I always felt like I was killing
so many days while moving endlessly back and forth in courtrooms. I have seen the despi¬
cable ritual of trials taking place in the name of Democracy too many times repeatedly and
every single time I walked away with packs of decades of sentences on my back.

However, it is not only the harsh sentences imposed on me by all this bureaucratic bar¬
barity which has been grinding lives in the millstone of justice that bothers me the most,
but also the arrogant and self-righteous style of the judges that execute our freedom while
maintaining the illusion of representing something special.

We now, therefore, are in the process of a new round of trials, where the judicial deci¬
sions of the proceedings at first instance are being reviewed on whether they were correct
or not. Personally, I didn’t attend this process to beg for mitigating or commutation. I did it
to confront the propaganda of authority, a propaganda that is trying to legitimize morally
and politically our convictions. For sovereignty, it is quite important and wise not only to
eliminate its enemies by holding them hostage for years but also to deconstruct their person¬
alities so that their motives and their actions appear selfish, dark, dirty and anything other
than actions that aim at the very core of sovereignty: power.

For Democracy, we are just some common law criminals. Although they call us terrorists,
vote for special laws for our prosecution, create special troops in order to pursue us, although
we are tried in special courts by special judges selected specifically for these occasions, al¬
though they keep us, occasionally, captives in special solitary confinement or make sure to
impose on us every possible or improbable scenario of exemption to several acquired rights
of the prisoners, they above all consider us common law criminals. At this point we are see¬
ing the following exceptionally uncommon. Even though our actions theoretically fall under
the common criminal offence, the entire political system feels the need to condemn it polit¬
ically on a continuous basis with expressions of outrage. The same goes for a whole mob of
journalists, academics of all kinds, figures of the left-progressive artistic stage and generally
various high profile and acknowledged personalities of society.

All of them tend to affirm repeatedly how very detestable the culture of violence is and
how ^Democracy has no deadlocks^. There has never been such a fuss, of course, about any
other common law offences and we will surely not see any surprises in the future.

Still, at these judicial proceedings, prosecutors often feel the need to add some political
positions to their, usually, rambling discourses, apart from all the legal statements.

Frequently, in courtrooms of that kind we have heard prosecutors rushing to comment
politically on what terrorism means, what political crime means and for which reasons, in
Democracy, protesting must have limits.

More royal than the king, prosecutors present themselves with the Royal Purple clothing
of Democracy preaching its moral, political and cultural superiority, only to conclude finally
in the classical ancient well known verdict that there is no greater evil than anarchy.

They may not repeat, of course, the words that Sophocles put in CreonBs mouth in his
famous work SAntigoneS, but the meaning always remains the same. Prosecutors with their
judgements, representing authority's universe of values, do not content themselves with the
adoption of the usual convictions but also seek to crush the practical opposition to Democ¬
racy's authority and the violent contest of its laws and institutions. So these special courts
officially refuse to admit that in reality we are prisoners of war, while at the same time are
anxiously striving to defend Democracy's ShighestS values, as the latest bulwarks of sys-

9

temEls moral legality. And that, if anything, could only constitute even an indirect admission
that these trials are in reality trials of values.

In the real world, the material world, perceivable through our senses, the ideas that are
lacking of related actions are hollow, empty, deprived of substance and meaning. If today I am
a hostage of authority tried again and again, either at first or second instance, it is because I
have let the idea of anarchy find its way inside me and have chosen to live fighting in various
ways against authority.

In love with the value of absolute freedom, believing strongly deep down that any kind of
power - even if presented under different guises each time - is nothing but a noose around
the neck of people that tightens and strangles their freedom, I have hated laws, rules and the
morality of your world.

I disdained every authority, loathed any sense of discipline and loved the idea of rebellion
as a continuous practical opposition to power. Being charmed by the beauty of absolute
freedom as a value was not just a caprice of my adolescence, neither a juvenile paroxysm
created by some easy adrenaline-based excitement and it certainly wasnSt a result of some
random passage along the corridors of a library of anarchist writers.

At a time when social protest and any social struggles were considered at best old-
fashioned, dated, a remnant of an old graphic era that had to be placed in an honorary mau¬
soleum or an enhancement field for unionism advocates of the rights (both of workers and
students) who brought any political clientele and a despicable cheap politicking together,
the only social dynamic that stood up in combative terms was the world of anarchy and the
wider anti-authoritarianism. I made the decision to become part of this dynamic, however
the social conditions of this era have greatly shaped my general worldview as well.

In the mid-2000s, when I began to take part in the various events of the anarchist move¬
ment, the socially shaped reality radiated an absolute gloom. The political hegemony of the
system had actually built two strong pillars on society:

I) On the one hand, the systematic corruption and bribery of the lowest social strata, ap¬
plied as a central policy by the Social Democratic administration of power from 1980 onward,
created a whole chaotic universe of Eclass-based inconsistent views®, which brought a radical
restructuring of the social classes of that time.

That volatile social mobility developed, out of the blue, new categories of upstarts while
the formerly detestable (even for the former political left) class of the petit bourgeois rose to
inconceivable dimensions, as within fifteen years the civil servants, small and medium sized
rentiers, property and agricultural land owners, entrepreneurs (the so-called ®small bosses®)
and self-employed increased by thousands.

The shortage of cheap labor (i.e. slaves that have nothing to lose but their chains) created
by this informal social democratic social reform was later covered by the open border policy
which has been conducted from 1990 onwards with huge migratory flows overwhelming the
entire Greek territory. The holes that appeared in the productive sector were covered by the
willing and cheap labour of thousands of immigrants, who built with their sweat and some¬
times with their blood, under the most terrible exploitative conditions (mainly undeclared

10

work), the small miracle of the Greek society, while at the same time the vast majority of
society enjoyed blithely the days of abundance, frequently sharpening its racist instincts.

This strategy of the Greek social democracy was apparently aiming at the ceasing of the
social rage that was breaking out till 1980 and the regular maintaining of the social contract
without any radical agitations. Although these social democratic strategies were not new -
on the contrary they have been extensively developed in the past, even by prominent figures
of the communist pantheon such as Marx and Lenin (who talked about the capability of so¬
cial democracy to corrupt broad parts of the working class, creating a ^labour aristocracy^
with indistinct borders in relation to the working class itself, which constitutes the social
pillar of the bourgeoisie or the social basis of opportunism) - there was no substantial polit¬
ical bulwark against this advance of social corruption, since only some revolutionary urban
guerrilla organizations stood against all this, and so did anarchy along with some parts of
the younger generation who formed a lighthouse of insurrection and resistance to all this
decay.

And besides, that is the reason why they received a relentless state repression.

Of course even though the Greek state was, from the very beginning of its establishment,
nothing but a pathetic country of dependence tied with the noose of external indebtedness
around its neck to the geopolitical interests of other powers or, even so, a state lacking of
any advanced industrial development with no exploitation in other third countries, still the
Greek social democracy managed to accomplish in absolute terms the formation of one of
the most disgusting and cruel ^labour aristocracies^ that perhaps has ever existed.

On the one hand, they made use of the European subsidies and financial allocations and
also of the unaccountability led by the financial sector while stepping on the backs and the
bodies of Eslaves-immigrantsK on the other hand, the Greek Asocial opportunism basisE was
expanded so much that the differences between class interests were brought into line.

It was under these circumstances that the common identity of the ^modern Greeks was
born in the social field.

The values of corruption, stinginess and absolute social cannibalism reigned, as wherever
you looked around you could see the confirmation of the existential proverb of Kazantzakis:
Hman is beast ( .) If you harm him, he respects you and trembles in fear of you. If you treat
him nice, he will rip your eyes outB

II) On the other hand, we now have the brutal imposition of the predominant ideology
used as a cultural nutrition. The premiere of the private television channels began to write
a whole new article in the history of the political life of this country, as various business
groups behind every channel stood shoulder to shoulder with one group of authority or
another each time. That of course was one part. The other part was that, at the same time,
an unprecedented cultural brain washing slowly began to establish the dictatorship of mass
culture. The western civilization and life style were extremely promoted as a one-way street,
while simultaneously an incredible oversupply of multinational firmsK products filled the
storefronts and shelves of abundance with a bunch of merchandise, both basic necessities
and goods entirely constructed on a consumer cultural basis that soon became an ideology
(I consume therefore I exist).

11

The effect of advertising on the common emotive and subconscious did not just bring
an artificially increased money circulation, but it also reinforced decisively the imposing of
aesthetic standards, stereotypical societal roles as well as a general perception of lifestyle,
way of thinking and entertainment. And that was also reflected in the urban construction.
Coffee bars, fast foods, shopping centres like Village, Mall etc. growing like mushrooms along
with the unrestrained industry of night-time entertainment caused the urban transformation
of many areas, which became overnight trading zones or zones of alternative, folk, upscale
or trendy type of entertainment.

Of course, the modernization of public and semi-public transport during this whole process
of urban regeneration was not innocent either.

Furthermore, the interactive effect of spectacle on the collective imaginary began to de¬
form further and further the social majority's conscience, through a disgusting civilization
that produced lifestyle, a glamorous star system and various reality and talent shows.

So this monstrous way of thinking, that distorted every real value (solidarity, mutual assis¬
tance, etc.), came into being, while peopleHs perception regarding the form of social relations
was dramatically altered.

Therefore, every relationship that could involve pure selflessness (such as friendship, love,
companionship) was distorted, and as a result the most widespread perception of all kinds
of relationships became that if they are not purely instrumental, they are no good.

This way of understanding things as well as life itself and peopleSs relationships became
dominant in such an absolute way that even the appearance of a deviation from this norm
(conscious or subconscious) collided on a powerful social racism and a multitude of social
prejudices, expressed sometimes in the form of a collective devaluation, disdain, mockery,
etc. others in the form of an open hostility, hatred and cannibalism of every personality that
differs.

So, aware of the social gloom of my time, a gloom that shaped a widespread, collective
identity of cannibalism, a collective cannibalistic HweH, hostile towards anything different,
anything that doubts, questions, anything that revolts and attacks the existing, I realized that
simply the choice of wanting to be an anarchist was nothing less but an antisocial choice as
it rejects the dominant trend.

Therefore, I stood against a society, which I understood not as an undivided sum of people,
like many that attack scarecrows of our positions would think, but as a breeding machine
of all the prevailing ideologies, views, relationships, values. Against a society-laundry of
democracy's ruling tyranny, of its laws and institutions, against this relentless, collective
SWeH that crushes and butchers every diversity, in every possible way, I chose to defend
an MM, an insurgent M, an anarchist MM, an M willing to stand up for values, even if this
alone would be enough to turn everyone against it. An I that appreciates more the value of a
beautiful forest than an endless concrete jungle where human ants are moving continuously
living to work, working to consume, consuming to exist and existing to work. I know that
when I refer to the twosome lEKve-BEI, I surprise many and irritate their argumentativeness. Let
them bear in mind that Fascism as well as Nazism, on their path towards dominion, attracted

12

the collective We. On the other hand, the anarchist radical federalism has never regarded
that We is above the I, but that there is an equal harmonious co-existence between them.

So, in my own mind very soon I reached the view that defending and fighting for a value,
for an ideal, for a dream or just for whatever it is that you consider ethical and fair, cannot be
a subject of negotiations that depends on how many you have on your side or how attractive
this way of life is to the majority of society.

Defending the things that you consider highest of value may as well be a personal choice
which doesn’t lose its worth at all, on the contrary it makes it so much more beautiful, even
though harder.

You donSt need the social content or the popular support to openly stand up for the posi¬
tion that “the world is turning^, since the moral superiority of such an attitude to life is rated
on moral terms and not on sloppy ones. From this point of view, defending freely that Hthe
World is turning^, even when the entire society wants to see you burn at the stake, what else
can it be than a choice against society, therefore antisocial?

So, what was of value to me, what I thought was worthwhile to defend and fight for was ex¬
actly the value of anarchy, the value of total freedom. I, too, have spent innumerable moments
daydreaming about a free world, where completely free people conclude among themselves
entirely free relationships, but when I woke up from this daydreaming and faced the social
reality, I would leach into a cynical political realism about how nothing of all this is achiev¬
able without the entire destruction of society, the womb of all these conditions forming the
dire straits that crush our existence.

Considering that I now live in a hostile environment where everyone around me is willing
to turn themselves against people like me just because we are different, I have adopted this
cynical political realism also as a view of things, and this very realism is what I, personally,
call nihilism.

So, as an anarchist I adopted logics and methods of personal and collective insurrection
by choosing to establish a relationship of rupture with the existing and its political structure
and also with the society that reproduces it, since its legalization in societySs conscience is
more than given.

I understood and experienced my affiliation and involvement to the Conspiracy of Cells
of Fire as my embarkation to a pirate ship that had no intention of ending up in a secure
and safe port, but planned to cross the unexplored and uncharted waters of wild freedom
and anarchist attack by plundering the modern colonization of our lives, which I consider a
beautiful and moving experience that I’ll never regret.

The Conspiracy of Cells of Fire, at least in the way I experienced it, offered me the possi¬
bility to turn the desires for denial, attack and destruction into collective action, although at
the same time it was something much more.

More important that the dozens of attacks on targets of the sovereignty and the system
(which I will avoid mentioning once again) was the fact that I experienced the opportunity of
coming together with other companionships in order to clash head-on with the Dictatorship
of the mass culture and dominant ideology that had taken roots deep inside society like a
cancer with multiple metastases.

13

Avoiding the traps of a lame populism which was incapable of calling a spade a spade
because of the need to appeal on society and on ears already hostile and prejudiced towards
us, we made all together the decision to proceed with a critical outline of society, of the
dynamics that have unfolded and the social parts that have been swirling on the inside.

This critical position had no intention to propose a general and blind holocaust but a skep¬
tical and disputable approach regarding various social behaviors that after all have been de¬
scribed by prominent communist personalities, famous existentialist philosophers, anarchist
individualists and nihilists of other times, neo-Marxists of different schools, situationist theo¬
rists as well as a large number of politically minded writers and poets of the social ethography
trend.

I may have regretted a lot of things in my life but the choice to serve a strategy is not and
will never be one of those things.

Now, as far as my presence in the notorious house at Chalandri is concerned, the one thing
I can say for sure is that it does not fall within the rest of the broader, friendly and family
relations that other people happened to have, resulting in them being charged with entirely
arbitrary accusations.

In that respect, I can do no other than take full responsibility concerning the presence of
the explosive device inside that house, since it was something completely known to me.

I am really sorry that such an operational mistake of an explosive device being kept even
for a few hours in a house completely legal where dozens of irrelevant people come and go,
in which I obviously was involved personally, caused the set up of an entire industry of pros¬
ecutions of people that had nothing to do with the CCF. However, the moral burden of this
construction of dozens of indictments will lie forever on the anti-terrorist unit and also on
the political authority and the constitutions of justice that made sure that the Machiavellian¬
ism and the collateral prosecutions rationality that we witnessed all those years since 2008
were covered up.

Now you, as part of this abscess, from which side will you judge my own attitude to life?
In what way can the fact that I chose to arm my desires and adopt the insurrectional violence
against all forms of tyranny be morally judged by personalities like you, acting in the name
of the world of authority? However, the use of brutal force provided by your position is not
enough for you, you are not settled with adjusting the time of my stay in the cells of your
democracy but you want to wash out morally and politically the gravestone that you try to
put on my freedom, you want all this to happen in the name of some supposed higher values
and moral advantages. But there are none, not even as a sample. It would be sufficient for any
person that hasn’t sold out entirely their dignity to watch this procedure in order to detest
immediately you and your supposed higher ideals. It would be sufficient for such a person
to embrace the idea of burning to the core or even blowing a courtroom apart, even though
it was something inconceivable before, only by watching this procedure, that visibly washes
out and covers up shocking contradictions of the chosen prosecution authorities.

This conflict in not only between us and this courtroom, as it can’t be isolated from the
overall human history. In this conflict the reconstruction of the ancient conflict between
Power and Insurrection, between Discipline and Disobedience is inherent. It is true that I have

14

chosen the way of violence and that I committed violent acts. I have clothed my disobedience
and my insurrection in fire and gunpowder and I have directed it to everything that Power
symbolizes and serves.

When they say ^violence is the same no matter where it comes fromE I spit disgusted.

Because the arrogance of Power that seeks the monopolization of violence is hidden in
that phrase.

Because how can someone compare the violence of insurrection, no matter how cruel and
merciless it may be, to the violence of authority? How can those two be put under common
denominator, how do they dare to equate those two forms of violence? How can the violence
of the insurgent slaves of Rome be equal with the violence of the Roman Empire? How can
the violence of the insurgent slave against the lash of the slave trader be the equal? How can
the violence of the tyrannicide be compared to the violence of the tyrant? How can all the
courts of the world, burnt down, be compared to human freedom rotting, buried somewhere
in a concrete grave?

Therefore you have no moral advantage, no higher value on which you can wash your
hands of the decapitations of freedom that you are signing for. I, on the other hand, have the
moral vindication that rose against authority on my side. And this is quite enough. And it
is rather beautiful in itself, so that I don’t regret the consequences of such a choice. And yes
it is true that the consequences are severe. The deprivation of freedom, the disablement of
the senses, the loss of all those you took for granted and that you appreciate only when they
disappear are a burden, which weighs more and more while time in jail passes. So much that
with each step you feel like killing a day of your life...

Still, the beauty of choosing to fight back against authority weighs more. And thatSs the
reason why I don’t regret this choice, for I was never willing to bargain over it.

I never ever calculated my values in accordance with realism or the attainable. The value
of anarchy, the value of total freedom is one of the most beautiful things to fight for.

And every time I asked myself if I would make the same choice against all odds, the answer
would always be HYesH. I would make the same choice, even if it would be like a punch in
the knife from the very beginning. I would make it, even if I was the only living person in
the world that believed in it, even if everything seemed to be in vain and aimless, even if I
knew that it would all be buried in the dark and that no one would ever find out that such a
desperate fight existed, even then I would make the same choice. Because, quite simply, the
value of insurrection cannot be negotiated.

Panagiotis Argyrou, member of the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire E FAI/IRF

Translated by Nihil Admirari

Reflection - 325 static until Spring 2018

via 325.nostate

Anarchist and insurrectionary autonomous counter-information is one more method of
subversion aiming at the attack against the dominant paradigm of the existent and it’s at-

15

tempt to control generalised narratives and perceptions. It is a tool to spread radical and
critical ideas which can add to and create campaigns of direct action internationally.

Our project is just another group in an informal network of counter-information and trans¬
lation where groups can communicate and exchange. Since 12 years we have been running
this site where we have added to the anarchist war against the many states and corporations
which want to wipe us out.

Understanding that the internet is in the hands of the enemies and one more tool of social
control we use their means against them, as just one more method at our disposal, never sepa¬
rating ourselves into just a ‘news-site’ of semi-professionalised activist journalism intending
to carve a niche into the ‘movement’. The limitations of the counter-information sites have
been written about previously by other groups which have changed, evolved and closed their
sites and blogs over the last years, each writing their reflections, critique and self-critique.

With this in mind, although we could write more about those years where we have col¬
lected experiences and reflections, this will happen at a later date. Periodically we close our
site for lesser or greater time to concentrate on other projects, talk and self-critique. This is
part of our effort to make ourselves more dangerous and is not a closure. We believe that the
proliferation of counter-information projects is the key to the resilience of our struggle, but
to remain focused that the war begins and ends with action in the streets of the cities and in
the defense of the natural world.

To this end, this site is static until next year.

For now, we affirm our solidarity, although through the minimal means, our words, to the
anarchist comrades under repression in the Operation Scripta Manent in Italy, the Anarchist
Black Cross, RadioAzione, and complicity to all those who fight the state and the existent,
with their words and actions in that territory. Also our hearts are with those who resist in
the prisons of Korydallos, Athens, Greece; the imprisoned comrades of armed revolutionary
organisations, the anarchist prisoners and all those who rebel.

For the next generation internationalist anarchist urban guerrilla

Long live FAI/IRF

Long live CCF

To a Trodden Pansy: Remembering Louis Lingg

From Plain Words

Louis Lingg was born on September 9, 1864 in Mannheim, Germany. Early in his life, he
began working as a carpenter, eventually involving himself in revolutionary struggles. His
politicization compelled him to evade military service, so he fled Germany for Switzerland,
only to be expelled in 1885. That summer, Lingg immigrated to the United States, settling in
Chicago, one of the epicenters of the vibrant German-American anarchist movement.

On May 3, 1886, police attacked a strike at the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company
plant, killing two workers. The following day, during a rally against this brutal repression,
police attacked demonstrators. In the melee that followed, an unidentified person threw a

16

bomb into the crowd of police, killing seven of them and injuring many others. At least four
other people were killed in the ensuing firefight between police and demonstrators.

In response, police, with little evidence, began rounding up anarchists who they claimed
played a part in the bombing. Eight prominent anarchists - among them organizers, orators,
and editors of popular anarchist newspapers - were sought by police: August Spies, Samuel
Fielden, Adolph Fischer, Albert Parsons, Michael Schwab, George Engel, Oscar Neebe, and
Eouis Fingg. Initially evading capture, Fingg was discovered in hiding on May 14. Not one
for willing submission to the state, Fingg fought the two police who tried to arrest him - first
with a gun, then with fists.

While Fingg was not present at the Haymarket the day of the bombing, the state’s dogs
claimed he was involved in making the bomb. Though no evidence links him to the bomb
thrower - whose identity remains a mystery to this day - Fingg was a prolific producer of
bombs and an intransigent enemy of authority. In a search of Fingg’s apartment, investigators
discovered two spherical and four pipe bombs.

After a notoriously prejudiced trial, the judge sentenced seven of the Haymarket defen¬
dants to death by hanging and Oscar Neebe to 15 years in prison. At his sentencing, Fingg
remained defiant, proclaiming “I die happy on the gallows, so confident am I that the hun¬
dreds and thousands to whom I have spoken will remember my words. When you shall have
hanged us, then they will do the bombthrowing! In this hope do I say to you, I despise you,
I despise your order, your laws, your force propped authority. Hang me for it.”

On November 10, 1887, the day before their execution date, the Governor of Illinois com¬
muted Samuel Fielden’s and Michael Schwab’s sentences to life in prison (Fielden, Schwab,
and Neebe would all be released six years later after being pardoned by Governor John Alt-
geld). Albert Parsons, August Spies, George Engel, and Adolph Fischer were murdered by the
state on November 11, 1887.

Fouis Fingg chose a different response to his impending execution. Days after four bombs
were discovered in his cell, Fingg placed a lit blasting cap in his mouth, blowing off his lower
jaw. Before the guards could enter his cell, he scrawled “Hoch die anarchie!” (“Hurrah for
anarchy!”) on the prison cell stones in his own blood. Fingg died six hours later, refusing
with his own suicide state authority’s control over his life.

For more information on Fouis Fingg and the Haymarket, read Paul Avrich’s exhaustive
and engaging book The Haymarket Tragedy.

To honor Fouis Fingg’s rebellious life, we present an unpublished poem he wrote in 1886,
discovered in the Fabadie Collection.

17

TO A TRODDEN PANSY
A broken stem, a pansy blossom crushed
In dirt, yet naught in all of Nature’s store
Revels in scorn at what we all deplore
In it. Wert thou where careless footsteps rushed?
‘Neath wanton lust wert thy fair petals brushed
E’en when thou smiled thy loveliest, before
Dark destiny had rolled its shadow o’er,

Ere yet thy innocence for cause had blushed?
Canst we read naught not writ in Custom’s scroll?
Living and human, cast in a finer mold,

E’en while we mouthing boast a ‘deathless soul,’
Yet still more wise than Nature, far more bold—
Regarding what in Nature is no loss
E’en while Hope’s brightest mintage we call dross!

18

The Anarchist Library Bookshelf

ANEWS

ATUBES November 2017
Digest of the Anarchist Tubes, Volume 3, #11
2017, December

https ://anarchistnews . org

Everything has bias. The bias of anarchistnews.org is to promote an anarchist culture by
providing a non-sectarian Digest of the Anarchist Tubes source of news and commentary
about and of interest to anarchists. ATUBES is a sporadically produced digest of some of
the articles and commentary featured on anarchistnews.org, illustrating some of the
breadth of anarchist thinking

bookshelf.theanarchistlibrary.org